Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining exactly what that means here — publishing cannot be undone from MCP — and by naming the reversible path (configureScreening active: false). It also discloses the idempotent return signal (changed: false) and a post-state workflow consequence: questions become dashboard-only once live.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and its effect lead, followed by preconditions, idempotency, irreversibility, and the post-publish constraint. Every clause carries distinct decision-relevant information; there is no restating of the name or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, result signaling (changed: false), rollback limitations, and the follow-up editing path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely or interpret the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single productId parameter, and the schema already tells the agent to source IDs from listProducts. The description only reinforces that the target is a 'beta project', adding no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Makes this beta project's screening form live') and immediately identifies the concrete effect: the public application link from getScreeningSetup's publicLink begins accepting applications. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like configureScreening, which it explicitly cites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives preconditions (source must be active, at least one question required), the no-op case (already live returns changed: false), and the explicit alternative for the opposite intent ('pause applications with configureScreening active: false instead'). An agent can decide whether to call this tool without opening another schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.